Huntington Pension Bond Sale Apparently Off for Now

September 9, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Local lawmakers in Huntington, West Virginia have postponed consideration of a measure imposing a 1% occupation tax as part of a plan to help pay the city's $117 million pension shortfall.

City Council members tabled a vote on the tax this week after discovering that some state lawmakers and financial advisers questioned the constitutionality of the plan and what the state’s responsibility would be if the city were to default on payments on revenue bonds sold to help make up the pension shortage, the Huntington Herald-Dispatch reported.

For now, that means people who work in the city will be spared from having to pay the proposed tax and that the unfunded liability will continue to chomp away at the city’s budget, the newspaper said.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Implementing the occupation tax had been in the works since the Legislature gave Huntington the authority in May to issue revenue bonds to pay off its unfunded police and firefighter pension liability (See  State Officials Continue Struggling With Pensions, Benefits ). Revenue generated from the occupation tax was to be used to pay off the revenue bonds, which in turn would have allowed the city to close the existing defined benefit pension plan and establish a defined contribution pension plan for all future fire and police hires.

Resolving those issues requires the Legislature to make modifications to the pension bill that it adopted in May. City leaders had hoped to convince Governor Joe Manchin to add the bill to the Legislature’s ongoing special session agenda.

Manchin refused because city officials cannot come to terms with the Huntington Fire and Police department unions on the benefits their members would receive under a new pension plan, Lara Ramsburg, the governor’s spokeswoman, told the newspaper.

The main sticking point in the pension bill with bond lawyers and financial advisers who have helped the city with its plan is the December 31 deadline for selling the revenue bonds and adopting the occupation tax. City officials did not request any deadline in the bill, Kent said. Rather, it was added by the House, he said.

“It’s the opinion of bond lawyers and financial advisers that this deadline is a potential fatal flaw,” he said. “They’re afraid the argument could be made that this bill is special legislation for Huntington, and as such would be unconstitutional.”

Schwarzenegger Shoots Down Same-Sex Marriage Bill

September 8, 2005 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he will veto the bill legalizing same-sex marriage "out of respect for the will of the people."

The bill passed by a vote of 41-35 in the Assembly this week after a previous defeat in the Assembly in June (See  CA Legislature Approves Same-Sex Marriages ).   The Senate approved the bill earlier by a vote of 21-15.   The Associated Press points out that a veto override in California requires a two thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate.

The AP reports that the governor’s press secretary Margita Thompson said in a statement that, in spite of his plan to veto the bill, Schwarzenegger still believes “gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship.”  

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Thompson also said the governor is proud of the fact that California provides “the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners.”   California gives same-sex couples many of the rights and duties of marriage with the state as domestic partners.

But gay rights advocates said the governor had betrayed the bipartisan ideals that helped get him elected in the 2003 recall election, according to the AP.

Schwarzenegger has until October 9 to issue the veto.

While the same-sex issue has been gaining attention in California, the Massachusetts Attorney General ruled thata proposed ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriages would be permitted under a section of the Massachusetts Constitution allowing voters to overturn court decisions.   The AP reports that this decision clears the way for conservative groups to begin gathering signatures and lobbying lawmakers to put the issue before voters in 2008.

«